Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustBerry (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 6 June 2018 (→‎Seeking Consensus: Coordinators: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEditor Retention
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them

An un-opened gift from User:Penyulap

This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.

Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."

Signpost

This is not so much about missing editors, but more about a missing newspaper and its editorial staff. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Death_knell_sounding_for_Signpost?_Proposals_required. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have lost another one

Looks like user:Coffee has retired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, if this is the first time he's retired. Note, that he indef blocked himself, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daicaregos & Cassianto (two long term editors) have retired :( GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP giving free pass to clear vandals for continued vandalism

Has it ever been brought up before, how WP policy/protocol/practice that permits ongoing vandalism are a source of editor frustration that c/ cause editors to become frustrated & leave? (For one example, IP 175.143.127.73. The IP's first edit was this. Followed consistently by more vandalism. Never stopped, never blocked.) Can someone explain why WP tolerates such nonsense? It ends up as a cancer, dumping unnecessarily more work on editors improving articles to un-do damage. (Why is policy postured to do that to reg editors? There is no thought it might be tiring? And that eventually editors might give up/quit?) --IHTS (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ya just gotta report such IP vandals to the administrative board that deals with vandals. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That begs Q, why wasn't this vandal reported for over 10 months? (Clearly there is room for WP s/w improvement, to auto-report a user Talk containing multiple warning templates, to be reviewed by a proud "janitor".)
Ok I have reported this vandal, we'll see what happens. Unlike you I have little faith in bureaucracies. (Case in point, after requesting permanent protection to stop continued vandalism at Ludo (board game), all I got was a series of incremental protections, which in the end of course had zero impact except wasting my time, wasting the admin's time, and frustating me. [I expect the admin wasn't frustrated at all, probably even enjoying the zero-impact-do-nothing measures, for whatever reason. The article continues to be vandalized, all I gained was frustration w/ WP impotency or unwillingness to do anything substantive about it.]) --IHTS (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that worked well (due to Kudpung; thank u Kudpung!). --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thx again to Kudpung, for meaningful protection on Ludo article. Much appreciation! --IHTS (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Less viewed articles, tend to be overlooked concerning vandalism. If an IP vandalized an article with high viewership? that IP is immediately blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra. I agree, continued vandalism is a hassle to deal with. I have found, however, that if you doggedly pursue vandals you can get them blocked. If you stay on them long enough you can convince admins to block for years at a time and protect pages indefinitely. It takes work that perhaps someone who focuses on writing content does not want to do. If this WikiProject wants to hold on to good countervandalism editors, it ought to do more to recognize their work and perhaps motivate them after testy exchanges. I see very little activity at WP:CVUA and editors here could do more to promote countervandalism as a means to protect content writers from burnout. Concerted support at RfAs for countervandalism admins would help, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra." Really? How is that is the spirit of Wikipedia? Perhaps you don't understand what the free flow of information entails and the work needed. You complain of human flaws but blame humanity in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a misanthrope. It says so on my user page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious his idea was requiring registration w/ lower vandalism. (Change suggestion to a WP premise.) You seem to miss the point that "the work needed" under current protocol potentially discourages/loses editors. This point needn't go philosophical, but yeah, wherever humans are there'll always be a dark side. If that's "human nature" then "blaming" humanity makes no sense. --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Consensus: Coordinators

There seems to be an issue with inactivity amongst the currently listed coordinators. Dennis Brown has declared their status as inactive. John Carter has been blocked indefinitely months ago. Awilley has declined to continue coordinating. SlimVirgin‎ has declined to continue coordinating. I am still waiting to hear back from Mark Miller, Go Phightins!, Doctree. Buster7 is active. Isaacl and I continue to help out with WP:EOTW (as well as Buster). Propositions on how to move forward? I strongly think we do need active coordinators, as the project will most probably not become active again on its own. --JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The project needs active participation; it's unclear if co-ordinators are needed. If someone were to assume a co-ordinator role, it would be helpful if they first established a track record of ongoing engagement with the project. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the active participation bit, but I do hesitate to agree on the assessment for the need for additional co-ordinator(s). I do agree with the fact that it would be helpful for the co-ordinator to have an established "track record of ongoing engagement with the project." I think it would be helpful to have at least a few editors, preferably the co-ordinators tasked with revitalizing the project, actively looking out for potential contributors to the project (extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, cordial, consistent efforts to reach out to discouraged or frustrated editors, etc.). The awareness of the project's ongoing efforts is not as broad as we may think (yes, amongst experienced Wikipedians who have been editing for some years now), which I have come to understand in my interactions with fellow editors; perhaps you may disagree with my assessment. Part of this revitalization will probably need to entail refocusing the project's efforts to a few specific sub-projects, Editor of the Week included. --JustBerry (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key question is there any obstacles for looking for potential contributors or starting other initiatives that requires a title of "co-ordinator" to resolve? As I've said numerous times before, let's find interested contributors, and discuss what to work on, before trying to revamp anything. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find potentially interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this is editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --JustBerry (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks together; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --JustBerry (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in pursuing these things can do so, without the need of a "co-ordinators" title. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the past discussions on this project page; they suffer from the same problems with establishing consensus as in many other venues. But there are lots of initiatives that can be pursued as long as there is an interested group of people willing to commit time and effort to it, and so I think we should encourage people to raise them and follow up. It's not easy, because everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell. Nonetheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so let's start. On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues?
(*) On a side note, all these transcluded sections make it harder to link to them, and I'm not sure what is gained by having them.isaacl (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others voice their opinion on the main discussion prior to adding on more thoughts. (Adding another note, but others can still chime in as always. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)) re to (*): Some sections were transcluded, whereas others were not. Lack of consistency makes it harder to follow the main page. Transcluded sections can be linked to individually and more easily managed in segments (rather than editing a header or main page each time). --JustBerry (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference with using transcluded pages for sections is that the content for a specific section has its own separate history and so can be watchlisted on its own. But this is typically only advantageous when the page and its separate sections has many edits. In this case, since the total number of edits is small, it is easier to have just one page watchlisted where you can pick up all of the changes. isaacl (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is valid, although the design of the page (with the "edit this section" linking to individual pages) has been sectioned for some time now. To open this up to everyone else as well, feel free to open up a new section to discuss this if you feel this is important. --JustBerry (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I agree that anyone can do so. I am familiar with past discussions on this project page; consensus is certainly not easy to achieve. However, with multiple concurrent discussions of many thoughts, concerns, and proposals, a sense of prioritization is often lost. Any co-ordinators will presumably take more organizational and initiative responsibility as compared to other members of the project. This has less to do with a formal election process and more to do with pushing the project forward. Also, the co-ordinator role itself introduces an active, project-familiar point of contact for members to reach out to. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Starting an initiative takes more than a proposal. More often than not, well-thought-out proposals come from active discussion from its members. It is understandable, though, that these discussions do not reach a consensus. Encouraging discussion, assessing consensus, prioritizing, and ensuring that pages reflect the current work of the project are all encompassed in the role of this initiative-taking individual, i.e. the co-ordinator. --JustBerry (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum II: Excuse me for the additional addendum, but as I think about our conversation, I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised more directly. I wanted to revisit when you mentioned "everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell." I agree; this is a primary explanation for how fewer members have become involved with particular initiatives over time. My goal is to address this issue more broadly than coming up with initiatives and lead them in the short run. Having a few people tasked with inviting members or editors that would be a good fit for maintaining the upkeep of certain initiatives would help keep the project alive. --JustBerry (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't say those literal words, but yes, that's what I meant when I said we should start discussing proposals that do not need consensus: like-minded persons can then refine them and run with them. As for prioritizing, since the proposals don't need consensus, they don't need someone to judge their priority, either; the interested persons can just proceed. And the reality is the number of proposals raised on this discussion page at the same time is vanishingly small. Prioritizing them has not been an issue. isaacl (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JustBerry, would you kindly explain why you think you are qualified to "reboot" this project? Explain what factors caused it to go dormant, and what skills you posses that makes you the person to fix it. Please discuss relevant history of this project and what you would have done differently. Please cite specific instances where you have applied your skills to help direct a wondering discussion towards a productive conclusion. You want to invite people here. How would you select those people? Do you have mass message rights to facilitate that? And most importantly, explain to everyone here why it is necessary you have a title to do any of it. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a consensus that you are a project coordinator here, yet you've self awarded yourself a userbox declaring yourself the coordinator of this project. Please explain how that particular action helps with editor retention. John from Idegon (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: There is no pre-requisite to becoming a coordinator. Because Buster7, Issacl, and I have been coordinating Editor of the Week for some time, I decided to step up to the plate to help coordinate Retention alongside Buster7, the only seemingly active coordinator. I understand that you have expressed some deep concern with this, and I respect your opinion. I did not mention the word 'reboot' in this section. I understand that you are concerned about the userbox. The userbox was borrowed from the WP:Retention templates page from back when I started coordinating WP:EOTW; this is solely so people could know that they could reach out to me if they needed anything. My apologies; I have modified the existing userbox template to reflect the scope as WP:EOTW. I would kindly ask that personal comments be presented on another talk page, however, as the focus of this section is on co-ordination efforts moving forward. If anyone has an alternative for how coordination efforts can be regularly fulfilled, please present them. --JustBerry (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely will not take this to another talk page. You asked for this by usurping the coordinator title. You are entirely mistaken that there is no qualification to be a coordinator. The qualification is the same as for any change on Wikipedia. Support, as expressed by consensus. Your change has been opposed. There is nothing here indicating ANYONE supports your move. As with any other opposed change it is up to you to build that consensus as the one wanting the change. I gave you a perfect opportunity to do so above. Instead, you chose to take the autocratic road and dismiss it. I'm a project coordinator. I was asked to do it. Other projects have elections. Most have no coordinator. New projects frequently have a driving force who steps aside after things get rolling. I'm sorry, but if you expect support, you've got to demonstrate you deserve it. And as objection has been expressed, until you garner said support, you are not the coordinator of anything and you need to quit purporting yourself as such. It's quite contrary to the Wiki way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John from Idegon (talk • contribs)
Just to clarify regarding your involvement with Editor of the Week, you implemented a bunch of to-do lists last year (which as far as I recall were only updated by you), and then didn't participate for over a year (I appreciate there are always ebbs and flows in one's involvement). You resumed participation recently, creating the most recent recipient text, and doing a lot of page reformatting. The enthusiasm is great; it would be good if we can get to work on some brain-storming. I'll try to open up a new section later today soliciting ideas. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the idea of having coordinators for editor retention project. If anyone is enthusiastic about this project, I would follow the model of Women in Red as they seem to be successful with what they are doing. Alex Shih (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree wholeheartedly. Alex Shih, are you aware of the near duplication of this to events last year? John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • John from Idegon, no I don't. I've briefly skimmed the page history here and saw what you mentioned, but did not read the actual discussions. In my opinion, EOTW, unlike WiR, probably doesn't need much "facilitating"; if folks want to get some kind of project back on track, it's probably better to start a project-wide discussion through RfC; I would also talk with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. Just no coordinators, please. Let's have spontaneous efforts. Although I wouldn't be opposed to anything – this is not something I would get too fussed about. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is encouraging to know that we do have a model of sorts to follow. Hopefully, the WP:RfC will effectively serve as a broader invitation to the community. I do hope that these spontaneous efforts or the goals that are highlighted in discussions are sustained over a longer period of time. --JustBerry (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the edit I reverted earlier

@Buster7:, with your consent, I propose the following:

All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder.

This project is pretty much dead, excepting the Eddy, which of course Buster should remain in charge of. As such, a coordinator is not needed. If a go-getter wants to jump start the project, just do it, for Pete's sake. No authority or appearance of same is needed. (FYI... project coordinators don't have any authority anyway). John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support - as proposer. Last year was enough. I don't want to do this again. It's frankly pretty childish. John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be three proposals to be voted on here, so this will be a multi-part vote:
    • Support: "All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder." This can easily be done by Buster7 with some consensus.
    • Support (to keep the same): The Editor of the Week bit is being handled just fine at the moment.
    • Oppose the co-ordinator bit. There have been multiple, faint attempts to start other retention projects, but the efforts do not seem sustained due to a lack of focus, i.e. without the help of an active co-ordinator. Replying to the nominating statement, who said the co-ordinator is a point of authority? No editor has 'authority' over another. Wikipedia is a community. The co-ordinator's role is to organize the project, encourage discussion, assess consensus, and highlight important goals/tasks. --JustBerry (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO DICTATE? DON'T THINK YOU AREN'T? this will be a multi-part vote: Who died and made you king? This is NOT how Wikipedia works. Do not replace my talk page comment please. And try to remember that you have no authority. You continue to state you know this, whilst continuing to act in an authoritarian manner. If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take a step back and work towards an approach to move forward? This discussion was opened to specifically discuss the language on the members page regarding co-ordinators. The earlier thread is discussing the need for co-ordinators. Editor of the Week isn't within the scope of these discussions. If we establish that a co-ordinator role is not necessary, (*) then this discussion becomes moot, so perhaps this discussion can be put on hold for now?

(*) Some of the confusion may lie around the role Dennis assumed and thus what he was passing on. He sought to guide discussion with a light touch if it seemed necessary, but not lead it. Nor did he seek to drive all initiatives. Thus the "co-ordinator" role, such as it was at the time, was primarily to facilitate discussion as required. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's do this step by step instead of making it confusing. If we are going to do a straw poll, let's start with one question only. Alex Shih (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is the talk page for the project page. By the nature of this project, this is its primary page. However, consensus for changes does need to be established somewhere. However, I agree we need to solve this puzzle. Suggest you hat this, Isaacl or Alex Shih. Also suggest we move to a straw poll. Their is a pretty clear consensus forming already. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention&oldid=844729557"